Congratulations on producing one of the most balanced and informative previews I have seen for these cameras.

I think the CX format will be a very significant part of the future for Nikon. Sensor technology can be expected to improve to the point that future 1" sensors will deliver image quality around the level of current APS-C. Nikon will need the CX format then to have a mass market offering.

The big negatives for me are the weight of the J1 body, the weight and size of the super zoom lens, the lack of a fast prime, and the suggested pricing. Nikon do not seem to have taken advantage of their smaller sensor size to provide a camera that is cheaper and more portable than the competition.

Hello NZUnicorn, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum!
To enjoy your stay here please have a look at the house-rules!
----
Methinks Nikon is using the new bodies as a platform for selling more lenses. This is almost certainly why they didn't join the 4/3 bandwagon.
And I'm sure they will produce past primes in the future. This is the more important as the dof of a CX-sensor is around 1.5 stop deeper compared to DX/APS-C. So to get the isolation of a f/2.8 lens on a DX-body you need a f/1.8 at least to get the same shallow dof wide open.

Ah, and another remark on the missing in-body/sensor-based stabilization:
I join Gordon here in my disappointment:
- lens-based IS has to be paid for with each lens you buy
- lens based IS makes each lens more vulnerable to failure, as the mechanism is pretty complex and sensitive. And lenses are supposed to have longer lives than bodies, so why complicate construction and shorten mtbf (meantime between failure) for them
- even short primes could use stabilization if only to use longer shutter-times, lower ISO and smaller apertures in stills.
- and a small and light system like the V1 and J1 with a small prime will always be prone to more shake than a hefty DSLR. I remember throwing away a lot of images on my first p&s (w/o IS) because pressiong the shutter just made me move the camera in the most critical moment

Now, everybody who reads my latest lens reviews knows that I rant about Nikon skipping on IS/VR in primes and would love to see sensor-based IS for their DSLRs. This is the more valid for the new cameras, as it would have allowed Nikon to begin with a clean slate, and I think Nikon has seriously made the wrong decision here.

For me, the big impact regarding lack of in-camera stabilisation is when it comes to video with unstabilised lenses, like primes.

I loved using a Panasonic GF3 with the 14 and 20mm pancake primes on a recent trip, but neither were stabilised lenses, and the body doesn't have built-in stabilisation. While this wasn't a big issue for stills, it was a deal-breaker for video as most of my footage was very shaky.

Since video is such a big part of the Nikon 1 system, it's s ahem it will be potentially compromised when using unstabilised lenses, like the 10mm model. And it's an even bigger shame since Nikon has experience in building stabilisation into bodies with its COOLPIXs.

I haven't been paying much attention to the Nikon 1 system, while it looks to be a decent camera, it's nothing to write home about. First of all, it's overpriced which I believe will be Nikon's biggest downfall. Nikon rarely makes a "failed" product. Although the D3000 wasn't too great, it still sold in decent numbers and their latest cameras have been selling nicely. However, the Nikon Coolpix range has never been able to compete with the PowerShots or Lumixs, and that's another reason that this may not sell well. Why buy a mirrorless camera that costs $200 or $300 more than the ones from Sony with the much larger sensor or Olympus that had a similar size (both with the lenses and bodies), but still has the larger M4/3 sensor? Many people may also not like how similar it is to the "failed" Nikon Coolpix range, it's more of a beefed-up compact than a dumbed-down DSLR. The average consumer may turn to a Sony, Oly or Panny for their mirrorless, the only people who will go for the Nikon are the die-hard Nikon fanboys who have been waiting for this product for quite a while. Don't get me wrong, it's still a great camera, but it has a few major downfalls that could turn away the average consumer looking for a mirrorless camera.

How 'bout a 200 f2? I could go for a 540mm f/2 lens, or a 840mm f/2.8 lens with a 300mm f/2.8. I guess that's one advantage of the Nikon 1 cameras, with the F-Mount adapter you can get some excellent telephoto coverage.

"And lest we forget, the Nikon 1 cameras also deliver blisteringly quick continuous shooting speeds to match their snappy AF: 10fps with autofocus or up to 60fps without will greatly appeal to action shooters."

Impressive. But what I found most interesting is this... As said in the preview, the auto focus is absolutely blistering fast and for someone who is taking photos of precise moments (example - street photographers). This is pretty much one of the most useful aspects a camera can have in my opinion.

I have been hearing a lot of complaints about the sensor size but (note - I don't have much knowledge about this) will it make THAT much of a difference? I mean I find it similar to the D40 having only 6 megapixels. Sure it does make a bit of a difference but does it make enough difference to people who are going to buy this?

Maybe I am just not that knowledgeable about the subject to really care for it.

As for the looks. I really like the looks of the thing. The colors wouldn't do anything for me being that I like black anyways but as a whole the camera looks very nice and simple.

The lenses are going to be my only issue with this camera. Here is why... Being that they literally have to start over with their lenses, the choices are limited! Also, I have a feeling that the price for the lenses are going to be a rather large chunk of change. However that pancake 10mm looks AWESOME!

I find it interesting to see that people are commenting on the advantages of the 1 system at the tele end and for action photography. I don't think it is a practical solution for that. It wasn't inteded to be used like that either, and I doubt it will work as people imagine it.

As I mentioned in my preview - inspired by comments from Bob I should add - the telephoto aspect is a little moot in relation to 24 Mpixel APS-C sensors. Had the Nikon 1 sported more than 10 Mpixels, then it would have had a telephoto advantage, but its pixel density isn't far off that of a 24 Mpixel APS-C.

What this means is if you take a 10 Mpixel crop from the middle of a 24 Mpixel APS-C sensor, you basically end up with something similar to the Nikon 1 output in resolution and coverage.

For me the real benefit lies with the AF and shooting speed. If it can acquire a subject as fast as they say and fire-off a load of frames, then it could be the ultimate portrait snapshot / kid photography camera.

That makes much more sense to me. The people who buy the 1 series will want something to have with them in a pocket and which is capable of quickly snapping off a few shots of the kids doing something fun or silly.

I'd like to buy a Nikon 1 for that exact reason; to have a camera in my pocket and quickly pull it out to shoot. It's a super quick shooter, it's small and the AF looks to be very quick. What's holding me back is the price, I still think that $800+ is too expensive to appeal to the masses. Also, something that I forgot to mention earlier, is its lack of lenses is a bit frusterating. It would've been nice to see a 15mm or 18mm f/2 pancake launch with it. Hopefully we'll see the CX line of lenses grow if these products are successful.